As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

9.53 p.m.

On a point of order. I observe from the provisional selection of Amendments announced in the Lobby that Amendments by way of two new Clauses in my name, one of which is also in the name of another hon. Member—Clauses which have no novelty—are not being called. These are Clauses which were passed on Second Reading on 20th March and had been passed in their entirety in Another place, but mysteriously and clandestinely, without any discussion of their merits in the Scottish Standing Committee, were wrenched from the Bill. In the first instance, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking that before the final selection is made you permit me to give such explanation of the new Clauses as to enable you to form a judgment whether or not they should be called.

As you will know, this has ample precedent. It is stated on page 482 of Erskine May that The Chair may ask any Member who has given notice of an Amendment to give such explanation of his amendment as may be necessary to form a judgment upon it. This has occured on other occasions, as is pointed out in footnotes in Erskine May.

I invite you, therefore, in the first instance to exercise your right to direct me to give a short explanation on which you can form a judgment whether you should or should not call the new Clauses.

If I do not ask the hon. Member to give an explanation, it is no discourtesy to him. I understand it. I think that the hon. Member knows well enough the strange difficulty with which the Chair is here confronted in circumstances which, in my view and belief, are unique. Whatever decision I should make about these Clauses inflicts misfortune upon somebody, and my lamentable conclusion was that, in view of what happened in the Standing Committee, the minimum injustice was effected by not selecting them. I am very sorry, but I cannot hear argument about it.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, I should at least be permitted to give you the reasons why I am asking you, which I have not yet done, to invite me to put forward and explain these Clauses.

No, I am sorry. I cannot allow argument about it. The Chair has this duty imposed upon it and, in those circumstances, it is extremely difficult but I cannot hear argument about it.

May I ask you, then, whether I may move a Dilatory motion, as is my right, under Standing Order No. 28? I beg to move,

That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. I move this Motion because otherwise, in my view, we shall be placing the women of Scotland in a situation in which they will be permanently in an inferior position from those in England and Wales. Unless we pause, we shall be left with a truncated Measure which will be a charter for bad husbands in Scotland.

First, it means that without the Clauses a woman in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales, could be chained for ever to a husband whom a terrible fate had reduced to a wild and dangerous animal.

Secondly, unlike in England and Wales, a self-centred husband, a boor, utterly devoid of affection for his wife, could almost with impugnity expel her from the house, which is is not permitted to do in England and Wales.

Thirdly, and finally, if we proceed with the Bill in its present form, a wife could never free herself from her husband, who is a husband in name, but not in fact. A woman whom a man decides to marry in Scotland has a right to be a wife and not a nun. She has the right to hope for motherhood. Unless we permit these Clauses to be discussed and to be adjudicated upon in the House we fail to do our duty.

I am moving this Motion because I believe that in the unique circumstances in which the House has passed a Bill in its entirety, giving these rights to the women of Scotland, when the Bill has been passed in another Chamber and then we find that without any explanation whatsoever from the Committee they are usurping the position of the House of Commons and the whole of Parliament by determining what shall be discussed by the House, this cannot be correct.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you find yourself facing a unique situation, but, with great respect, you should not be the master of the House in deciding what legislation we shall pass. When the House of Commons has decided, on Second Reading, that these Clauses should be in the Bill, you should not tell us that we cannot discuss them again. I believe that because there is a major constitutional issue, we cannot limit our compassion as Members for constituencies in England and Wales. I cannot believe that it is proper that we should proceed with a Bill which is in its present form because of a mixture, an amalgam, of religious prejudice, of Government bungling and, in fact, of all the evasive stratagems which, unfortunately, begin to come into existence whenever a Bill impinging upon human relationships comes into this House. For these reasons, I am moving the Motion.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties, as he appreciates mine, but, as a servant of the House, I cannot accept the Motion.

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), Mr. Speaker. You have said that you cannot accept the Motion to adjourn the debate, which my hon. Friend sought to move. Could you tell the House what then will be the position of the House if my hon. Friend puts on the Order Paper the Motion which, I gather, he might put down criticising the selection of Amendments by the Chair? What would be the position of the House as to when such a Motion could be considered? Is it not a fact that this would be the only way in which a Ruling of the Chair could be questioned?

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Divorce (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

My answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is that it will not be within my control when the Motion is on the Order Paper. I shall listen with interest when the House discusses it.

But, Mr. Speaker, you have yourself said that this is a unique situation, a situation which has never arisen before and in which the House has no precedent to guide it. Surely, in such a situation, it would be open to the Chair to say that there should be acceptance of a Motion to adjourn the debate so that the House might have an opportunity properly to consider the Motion to be put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool to the effect that it would prefer a different selection of Amendments.

The only way in which the Chair could enable that to happen, on a unique occasion, would be to accept my hon. Friend's Motion to adjourn our proceedings. The House could then decide whether it wished to adjourn to enable the other Motion to take precedence over the discussions which you would call if the Motion were not accepted.

It is a matter which the House leaves to the Chair's discretion. I must wear the responsibility, and I do. I cannot go further about it. I must wear it in the difficult circumstances and we must now proceed.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, you have ruled you cannot accept a Motion to adjourn the debate, but, according to Standing Order No. 28, your discretion in this matter is to some degree fettered, for it is stated as mandatory that you are able to refuse to accept such a Motion if you believe that it is an abuse of the rules of the House.

We are here in a unique situation. The Standing Committee, as I say, is usurping the position of both Houses of Parliament. Could it seriously be suggested in these circumstances, when you have not, with respect, a wide discretion, that in taking this important point I am abusing the rules of the House? The very anxiety and concern which you yourself have expressed shows that this is a weighty matter, and certainly not a frivolous one put without thought or deep consideration. Moreover, it is a matter which affects the fundamental rights of men and women in Scotland.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that, unless you consider that what I have done is an abuse of the rules of the House, you cannot rule the Motion out of order in the peremptory way in which, with respect, you have done so.

I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman, if I can, to follow what I am doing, as a servant of the House. It is not really open to hon. Members to do anything but accept the selection of the Chair, because selection is entrusted to the Chair. It is only a matter of courtesy, really, that I allow these public discussions to proceed. I do not wish to appear dictatorial. The difficulty is that, subject to the selection of the Chair—which can be challenged if that be thought right, but not now—there is no excuse for putting off what the House now has to consider, namely, consideration of the Bill. It is in that sense that I am obliged not to accept a Dilatory motion.

Further to the points which have been raised, Mr. Speaker, would you clear up one matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) seems to doubt? Is it not a fact that the Scottish Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill was perfectly within its rights in deleting these Clauses as part of its duty in amending the Bill?

Yes, but, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that arises now. It might affect my selection, but that is a different matter.

Further to the point of order. Will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this Committee consisted of a minority of Scottish Members and that there is another opinion in Scotland about whether these provisions should be inserted in the Bill? There will certainly be regret in Scotland that in this matter the House of Lords has been more progressive than the House of Commons.

I am anxiously troubled about these various matters. I came to the conclusion that the least injustice would be effected by the course which I have adopted. That is why I adopted it.

I understand from the explanation which you gave, Mr. Speaker, that the reason why you made this decision was that you tried to give a decision which would cause the minimum injustice. May I ask you, very respectfully, to consider the constitutional aspects? The decision means that private Members, and the House of Commons as a whole, are deprived of their constitutional right, according to the Standing Orders, to move Amendments or to propose new Clauses to any Bill reported back from a Committee.

Therefore, in the exercise of such discretion as you have indicated, may I ask whether you are of the opinion that, constitutionally, more damage and injury has been done by your decision than would have been done if you had accepted the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that those aspects were a matter of great concern to me, and that I tried hard to balance them all out. But I cannot alter my decision in these circumstances, which are peculiar.